1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Each of the main claims of plaintiffs B, C, and D and the ancillary claims of plaintiffs B and C are all filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2008, F entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on April 22, 2008 with regard to the share of 1/2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 700 million (hereinafter “the instant mortgage agreement”). On April 23, 2008, F completed the establishment registration of the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 23, 2008.

B. The Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction against the instant real estate with the Seoul Northern District Court G, and received dividends of KRW 70 million on November 24, 2009 at the above auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, and Gap evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the mortgage contract of this case was a fraudulent act and sought the return of KRW 700 million which the defendant received as a dividend to the plaintiffs. The defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of "one year from the date when the creditor became aware of the cause of revocation", which is the exclusion period stipulated in Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act.

B. (1) In the exercise of the right of revocation by a creditor of relevant legal principles, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the grounds for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the debtor harmed the creditor. Thus, the mere fact that the debtor conducted a disposal of the property is insufficient to say that such a juristic act is prejudicial to the creditor, that is, that is, the act that the creditor’s disposal of the property is not sufficient to secure the joint security of the claim, or that the joint security already in the short situation is insufficient, making it impossible to fully satisfy the claim, and that the debtor was aware of the fact that

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on November 26, 2002